Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 11:53 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:41:07 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:53:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman >> <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <4688b1c8-f155-4b23-bb22-a8e56c28fa1b(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: >> >>>> And even if you assumed CO2 levels did, where did the CO2 come from? > >>> CO2 is being subducted - as carbonate rock - all the time. The >>> carbonate is unstable once it gets into the outer mantle and comes out >>> again in volcanic eruptions. The spectacular volcanic eruptions that >>> created the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps released a lot of CO2 >>> in a relatively short time - geologically speaking. >> >> Good, so it does not come from us burning stuff. > >We already know how much fuel we burn and the residual amount staying in >the atmosphere is around 60% from Keelings original work at Mauna Lau. >Now refined by NOAA with global monitoring. You can even watch the >fossil fuel CO2 emitted by the northern hemisphere industrial nations >move to the southern hemisphere with a suitable time lag. > >AND you can tell it isn't coming out of the oceans because the changing >isotopic signature matches the fossil fuel that we burnt. > >Be careful what you wish for...today volcanic activity contributes about >1% of the carbon dioxide net increase. The rest is coming from us. A >reasonably detailed article on CO2 from vulcanism is online at: > >http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/directDownload.cfm?id=432&noexcl=true&t=Volcanic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20Global%20Carbon%20Cycle > >Climate change around the time of the Deccan traps vulcanism 65 Million >years ago was one of the worst periods of global extinction the Earth >has seen. Do you really want to go the way of the dinosaurs? > >>> The fact that some of the laval flow came up through coal fields meant >>> that they burnt a fair bit of fossil carbon in the process. >>> >>>> It is much more simple (Occam's) to think CO2 levels went up because the = >>> warmer climate >>>> had more animals populate the earth.... >>>> But even that may not be so. >>> It isn't. there aren't enough animals around to to have much direct >>> effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere - if they don't go in for >>> digging up and burning fossil carbon on an industrial scale. >> >> Good, then we can forget all that Gore stuff about farting cows and pigs that are bad for the world, >> and need to be more taxed. > >He has a point at least where methane emissions are concerned. > >CH4 though short lived is a more potent GHG in the atmosphere than CO2. >And it could be a real menace if we release the huge volumes trapped in >permafrost and oceanic seabed clathrates. > >And it would improve the health of the US population to eat a bit less >meat. Japans high life expectancy is in part due to a much better diet. > >Regards, >Martin Brown Don't you people ever do electronic design? One nice thing about electronics is that you know pretty soon whether you're right or not. Another is that you can finish one thing and move on to another. John
From: John Larkin on 27 Nov 2009 11:56 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:44:52 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 26, 10:11�pm, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > >> ps- the mashed potatoes cooked in *five minutes* at 6400 feet in the >> pressure cooker that S sent us. > >I love pressure cookers. I'm glad you like yours. I thunk it up, and >S stole me thunder! Well, thanks to you both. There are few things more disappointing than raw mashed potatoes. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 12:29 On Nov 27, 4:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 27, 5:34 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > But with the implication that we shouldn't work on reducing our > dependence on fossil fuels. Jan has earlier claimed that people who > took anthropogenic global warming seriously wanted us all to reduce > our energy consumption to zero and live in unheated grass huts, which > is flat-out wrong, as evidenced by George Monbiot's book "Heat" and > Thomas L. Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded". I read Friedman's book. My word but he's an illogical, histrionic fool. Not sure if I finished it--once I saw his rationale assembled, it grew too tedious to watch him extrapolate ever more fantastical consequences. I rate Friedman "Nobel Peace Prize worthy" x 1.05. > > > ELECTRICAL > > > > > Total > > > > electricity: 1.61 x 10^18 J > > > > (nuclear): 1.29 x 10^18 J > > > > 1.29 is 80% of 1.61, so Mr. Bill remains authoritative and Mr. James > > > remains a clown. > > > Bill, you're a goof! 1.29 is exactly 80% of 1.61 because that's how I > > got 1.29--by guesstimating 80% of the 1.61 as nuke[1], then > > multiplying! > > > [1] I think I even got that 80% figure from you! > > The correct figure is 78.8% - I checked it at the time - which is > closed enough to the 80% that I didn't see any point in complicating > the argument by introducing new data. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France > > Many thanks for the revelation about the way you put together your > "evidence". I'd be tempted to salt my arguments with the occasional > obviously absurd claim - granting your fatuous ignorance and > unrealistic self-confidence I'd have a very good chance of sucking you > in - but it isn't really necessary, because you can be relied on to > make a fool of yourself. I thought it was more than good enough of an approximation for a back- of-the-envelope estimate of a ~20% factor. Engineers do stuff like that. And, I got within 1.5%, for an overall error contribution of < 0.3%. Or did you mean it was a mistake for me to depend on something I thought I might've heard from you? -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 12:38 On Nov 27, 6:44 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:33:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <c66059e5-cc29-4007-8344-3abc11935...(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: > > >Jan's point - in context - is that Exxon-Mobil should get a free pass > >to continue to extract and burn fossil carbon because it's > >predecessors helped to set up the infra-structure that currently > >sustains us, but will evnetually bring us down if we keep on burning > >fossil carbon at the current rate. > > That is not accurate, for the nth time I stated many times we should move towards nuclear power. > But it will not be anytime soon nuke power can replace all our energy sources, so Exxon & friends > will be with us for a long time with oil. > > It would be nice if you did not start every post with "You know nothing I know everything', > although that is your religion, no need to push that on anyone OK? I understood you perfectly Jan, if it makes you feel any better. A few others didn't, but I guess that's just a hazard of internet and text postings. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 27 Nov 2009 12:44
On Nov 27, 11:48 am, John Larkin <jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 26, 8:33 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have > >> >prevented this. > > >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a > >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who > >> >know what they are talking about. > > >> --- > >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. > > >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204... > > John Spot-on. -- Cheers, James Arthur |